The Genius of Scientific Revisionism

On his Blog, dated Dec. 1, 2011, Professor Faurisson hails Arthur Butz in these words:

"I am in the habit of calling Arthur Robert Butz "Doctor Genius". For me he is the Number One scientific revisionist of "the Holocaust".

Butz is the author of a "masterful" book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, we are told. The prominent French revisionist asserts:

"In 35 years (1976-2011) not a single historian, academic or researcher has been able to make a rebuttal to it or refute it."

This claim is typical Chutzpah. The truth is that the fundamental claims of Butz´s "Hoax" have been refuted again and again by many scholars. The fundamental claims of Faurisson´s "Doctor Genius" include:

1. The Jews were not exterminated, for after the end of the war they were still there. - A lie.

2. The Nazi euthanasia program, with its gassings, had nothing to do with alleged gassings in the camps. - A lie.

3. Leichenkeller I in Krema 2 was not a Vergasungskeller or a Gaskeller - even though the Germans said so. - A lie.

4. The "Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" were "manufactured by Moscow". - Also a lie.

The genius of the scientific revisionist is twist speak for the genius it takes to ignore reality.

Faurisson and Butz maintain that the Nazis only intended a territorial solution of the Jewish question. There was no attempt, no plan etc. to murder the Jews.

The Einsatzgruppen were not to kill the Jews, said Faurissson in 2006. The Ereignismeldungen (EM) wrote Butz in 1976, were "amateur essays", a "forgery"(Butz . p. 200).

Now, in 2011, the reports (EM) of the Einsatzgruppen (EG) have become available in print, edited by Mallmann/Angrick/Matthäus/Cüppers under the title Die " Ereignismeldungen UdSSR" 1941. Dokumente der Einsatzgruppen in der Sowjetunion, Darmstadt (Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft). This is a truly monumental work, the first of four volumes. It is a critical edition of EM 2 (June 23, 1941) to EM 149 (Dec. 22, 1941).

The reader will soon see that the EM contain an enormous amount of authentic information about events, persons and places etc. that cannot possibly be "forgeries" that were "manufactured by Moscow". There are vivid descriptions of NKWD atrocities and Communist crimes - the last thing that would have been "manufactured by Moscow". Very typical German, all of it.

And Faurisson´s claim that it was not the task of the EG "to kill people" is contradicted on almost each page. For instance, on p. 144, EM 27 casually reports that, "Die Liquidierungen laufen täglich weiter". The murders continue as usual.

The authenticity of the EM was never disputed by any of the Germans who prepared or read the EM that were written, not in Moscow, but in Berlin. On the other hand this does not mean that all details are correct. Comparing the EM with the available reports of Böhme, Jäger, Stahlecker etc., there are certain inconsistencies, but, as said, this certainly does not allow us to reject the EM as a whole (as some of the "scientific revisionists" have sometime done).

It is impossible to summarize the contents of the 897 pages of introduction, text and notes. There is absolutely nothing here that can honestly be described as "amateur essays". EM 106 is our main (but not our only) source for the Babij Jar massacre of Sept. 29 & 30, 1941. Dryly, the report states (p. 642):

"In Zusammenarbeit mit dem Gruppenstabe und 2 Kommandos des Polizeiregiments Süd hat das Sonderkommando 4a am 29. und 30. 33771 Juden exekutiert."

The execution is explicitly described as an "Umsiedlungsmassnahme" (ibid.)! And the report goes on:

"Dass die Juden tatsächlich liquidiert wurden, ist bisher kaum bekanntgeworden...".

Here we also have some of the photographs taken by Johannes Hähle, showing some of the Jewish victims.

On the way to Babij Jar

...after the executions

Nevertheless, some of the "scientific revisionists" still claim that Babij Jar "never took place".

The unique importance of the EM as a historical source has been recognized by many scholars for long. One of the first scholarly books to make extensive use of these sources was Die Truppe des Weltanschauungskrieges. Die Einsatzgruppen der Sicherheitspolizei und des SD 1938-1942, Stuttgart 1981, by H. Krausnick and H.-H. Wilhelm.

Faurisson mentioned this book in 1990, told us that it contained 688 pages but no order or plan for the physical extermination of the Jews, thus leaving his reader with the utterly mistaken impression that it was not the task of the EG to kill the Jews.

To sum up: The genius of the "scientific revisionist" mainly consists in the bad habit of ignoring or distorting historical reality in various ways. Should you fail to pay your respect to this sort of doctored genius, you may soon see your name defamed by some of the most rabid supporters of these prominent masters of Chutzpah.

The EM contain such an enormous amount of rare information about cultural, economical, administrative, educational, religious, sociological, nosological, demographic, military and other affairs, that no serious scholar can afford to ignore them. They tell us a lot about German efficiency - and about Nazi terror and brutality.

Dr. Christian Lindtner

Don´t Show Me a Nazi Gas Chamber!

When Robert Faursisson visited Stockholm in 1992, he made a famous challenge, when he said that he had been looking for a Nazi gas chamber for thirty years without finding any. So he challenged the Swedish medias with these words:

"Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber!"

Not only did the Swedish journalists but also the Scandinavian historians fail to do so. What a great pity!

This incident probably left many with the impression that there was no documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. That, however, is a wrong impression, and Faurisson must have been counting on the ignorance of his audience. Faurisson often argues, even now in 2011: If there were no gas chambers, then there was no holocaust.

He knows very well, however, that there is manifold documentation for the existence of Nazi gas chambers. He also knows that this documentation is only available and known to  a few specialists - including himself.

So, the French professor is fooling the public with his Chutzpah. He is also playing a trick, when he reduces the Holocaust to a mere matter of gas chambers in Auschwitz-Birkenau.

I have often asked Faurisson to answer various difficult questions with regard to the Holocaust, and I have asked others to help him do so. There have been no real answers, only evasions, distortions, silence etc. I am not the only person who would like to have answers to my questions.

So here is my challenge to Prof. Faurisson:  

Please answer my questions, and I will then show you a Nazi gas chamber!

If you still fail to answer my questions, I fear that you are not really interested in seeing a Nazi gas chamber. I will think that your real attitude is this:

Don´t show me a Nazi gas chamber!

It is now up to Prof. Faurisson  to decide what we all have to think about his challenge in Stockholm.

Kære Hanna - ORDNUNG und VERNICHTUNG!

På nordiske sprog findes efterhånden en stor mængde materiale om Holocaust. Grundige  videnskabelige bøger finder man ikke , og da emnet jo er alvorligt, egner det sig kun dårligt  til populær fremstilling.  For det meste fokuseres der på Auschwitz. Auschwitz og lejrens gaskamre  er i centrum - også når hensigten er at benægte, at massemordet på de europæiske jøder overhovedet fandt sted.

Benægterne henviser til de ret talrige usikre vidner, og påpeger, at det rent teknisk og fysiske er svært at forestille sig, hvordan masseudryddelser overhovedet var mulige i krematorierne og lejrens to "bondehuse". Man henviser også til, at der ikke findes dokumenter eller fysiske beviser af nogen art. Det kan jo lyde meget rigtigt, og  har medført, at der mange, der tror, at Holocaust aldrig har fundet sted, men "er opfundet af jøderne".

Der foreligger her en fundamental fejltagelse. Ser man på Auschwitz i den større historiske sammenhæng, ville det have været noget af et mirakel, hvis der ikke havde været gaskamre i Auschwitz-Birkenau. De færreste synes at vide, at der var talrige gaskamre i Tyskland allerede fra 1939. Hensigten var altid, at udrydde "unyttige" mennesker på en "human" måde. Normalt blev afgørelsen truffet af tyske læger. Det siger derfor sig selv, ville jeg mene, at der må have været gaskamre i Auschwitz, af den simple grund, at der kom talrige "unyttige" jøder til Auschwitz. Hvorfor skulle Auschwitz dog danne en undtagelse fra den almindelige regel!

Den grundlæggende nazistiske jødepolitik var, fra sommeren 1941 den, at alle jøder, der ikke kunne arbejde, skulle udryddes.

Her skal det imidlertid ikke handle om de gaskamre, der efter al sandsynlighed  fandtes i Auschwitz, men som nu ikke længere forefindes i deres oprindelige tilstand.

Man læser kun sjældent om den rolle, som tysk politi spillede i forbindelse med deportationerne og henrettelserne af de europæiske jøder.

Fra april til august 2011 blev der i Deutsches Historisches Museum i Berlin afholdt en udstilling om det tyske politis rolle og virksomhed under Hitler. Til udstillingen foreligger et meget instruktivt  katalog, der stadig kan bestilles gennem boghandelen. Dets titel lyder: Ordnung und Vernichtung - Die Polizei im NS-Staat. Heraf fremgår, at ikke blot Gestapo, men også Kriminalpolitiet, Sikkerhedspolitiet og især Ordenspolitiet var dybt involveret i arrestation, deportation, registrering, bevogtning og henrettelse af europæiske jøder fra 1939 indtil 1945.

Himmler var øverste chef for  politiets mange afdelinger. Heydrich var chef for Sikkerhedspolitiet (SIPO), og Daluege chef for Ordnungspolizei (ORPO). Müller var chef for Gestapo. Det er først i de senere år, at der foreligger meget omfattende dokumentation for de tyske politiformationers indsats i de besatte områder.

Himmler og Daluege 1943

For en historiker er dette materiale meget værdifuldt. Kilderne har en helt anden kvalitet og lødighed , end de "vidner", man ellers præsenteres for i massemedierne og den populariserende litteratur. Der er tale om politirapporter, nogle fra krigens tid, andre, der er blevet til ved afhøringer af  politifolk efter krigen. Overalt mærker man tyske grundighed og objektivitet. Der er på intet tidspunkt - mig bekendt - tale om at tyske politifolk er blevet udsat for tortur - af deres kolleger!

Da der stadig er så mange usikkerhedspunkter omkring Endlösung, søger man efter faste holdepunkter, og hvilke bedre holdepunkter kan en historiker finde, end tyske politifolks egne ord! Jeg har ved flere lejligheder fremhævet Wolfgang Curillas moderne standardværker om det tyske Ordenspolitis indsats i Baltikum, Hviderusland og Polen (fra 2006 & 2011).

I efteråret 1941 sendte en tysk politimand et brev hjem til sin kone, Hanna. Brevet er bevaret, det er et  sikkert samtigigt dokument, og her læser man følgende:

"Kære Hanna,

Vi befinder os i en lille landsby (i Ukraine). Alle jøderne bliver udryddet (Alle Juden werden umgebracht). Men det behøver du nu ikke at tænke på! Sådan må det være!"

Da jeg for nogle måneder siden blev opmærksom på dette lille brev, bad jeg professor Faurisson om en kommentar. Han har jo ofte sagt, at tysk politi slet ikke havde  til opgave at skyde jøder. Ved samme lejlighed bad jeg ham kommentere et telegram fra Himmler, politimandens øverste chef  fra samme periode i 1941. Det lød:

"Alle jøder skal skydes. Jødekvinder drives ud i sumpene"

Jeg fik aldrig noget svar.

Dr. Christian Lindtner

Dr. Toben ALSO needs YOUR Help!

Dr. Toben´s October 2011 comments go to show that I was not wrong in making the claim that "Holocaust Denial is Chutzpah".

He clearly claims that it is not for Prof. Faurisson to prove anything at all, for Prof. Faurisson does not make any claims himself.

But actually Prof. F. makes numerous claims, some of them even being quoted by Dr. Toben himself, e.g.,  "Neither here or elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews."

That is a nice case of Chutzpah, or sophistry: To make a claim, and then claim that you make no claim.

I posed several questions to Prof. Faurisson without receiving any answer. Dr. Toben then turned up, but, alas,  also failed to answer my questions. He simply ignored them, coming up with a few  personal insults instead.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Dr. Toben launches a "definition" of the "Holocaust". I do not accept this poor definition, for it  is far too narrow, and not in accordance with what actually happened. It would be like defining a car, leaving out the engine, the doors, the wheels, the windows  etc. The cheap trick is to invent a stupid definition and then ascribe it, wrongly and dishonestly , to your opponent.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Dr. Toben also makes false inferences when asking for a Hitler order. From the fact that there is no WRITTEN order here and now, he infers that there never was any order at all. But there is good evidence that there was an ORAL order, as has often been pointed out by myself and others.
Thus, he not only ignores available evidence of  an oral order, but also resorts to a false inference.

That, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

Finally, Dr. Toben makes various claims with regard to various trials, but they too, are - mere claims without any proofs being offered.

Dr. Toben is, of course, welcome to make all these false or empty claims. At the same time it ought to be clear to him that it is he himself - not his opponent - who is preventing an open debate on the Holocaust.

So, if he deplores that there is no open debate, that, too, is a nice case of Chutzpah.

A personal note: A friend of mine finds that I am wasting far too much time on "these nuts". One should, instead, just ask these "mad deniers" to explain what Himmler had in mind when he stated, in July 1941, and in  June 1944:

1. "Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben!" (All Jews must be shot. Jewish women must be pushed into the swamps)

2. "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten." (It is good that we had the hardness, to eradicate the Jews in our areas)

"An Interview with ex-denier Christian Lindtner"

Holocaust Controversies interviewed me. Click on this link to read it: http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2011/10/interview-with-ex-denier-christian.html

Professor Faurisson Needs YOUR Help!

The world’s absolute leading holocaust denier Professor Robert Faurisson has often complained that there is no "open debate" about the Holocaust. He has often also been helpful in making rare documents etc. available.

More than six months ago I asked him five questions about the holocaust. For reasons unknown, Professor Faurisson can or will not answer these simple questions. He either talks about something else, or does not reply at all.

Professor Robert Faurisson in Copenhagen, Denmark 2002

In the interest of an open debate, I have now decided - after more than six months of no debate - to ask the public to help the famous French scholar answer my five questions from April 17, 2011:

1. You posited in 2006: "Neither here nor elsewhere did there exist any order to kill the Jews." Please provide one PROOF - just ONE proof - that this statement is true!

2. You stated in 2006, correctly: "The Einsatzgruppen...On the immense Russian front, they were mere 3000 (three thousand), drivers and clerks included." But why do you omit to mention that, when murdering Jews, they, the EG/EK, were assisted by some 20000 members of the Ordnungspolizei, and perhaps even more Ukrainian and Latvian and other non-German collaborators? That omission may be very misleading.

3. In discussing Babi Yar, you refer to John Ball´s air photos, and to a German document that you consider doubtful.- But why do you leave out all the other German documents?  Why do you not mention the photos of Johannes Hähle, from Babi Yar and Lubny, for instance? Why do you not mention that the AA (Luther, von Weizsäcker) also knew of this mass murder? Such omissions, too, may be very misleading.

4. When it comes to the task of the Einsatzgruppen, you state that they would "have to check the identity of the prisoners and civilians. This does not mean that these people are going to be killed.” But, please,  how does this interpretation of yours  fit with e.g. what SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger  (EK 3) himself wrote in his report  from Kaunas to Berlin, December 1, 1941: " Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, vom EK 3 erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden incl. ihrer Familien." The number of those killed by Jäger and his men (Joachim Hamann et al.) was 137.346. When it comes to the "Ziel" of the EG/EK - on whom are we to rely: On you - or on Karl Jäger? If you say that Karl Jäger - and the other commanders and members of the EG/EK - totally misunderstood the order - please provide proof - one or many, as you wish.

5. Often you repeat, "Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber". You have been doing so for years. Also, you claim that the much discussed Vergasungskeller (in Krema II, Birkenau) was not such a Nazi gas chamber. You, and others, have come up with various conflicting interpretations - gas shelters etc. etc.  In other words, you are saying that the Vergasungskeller was not a Nazi gas chamber but something else. So, again, please give us just ONE PROOF that the Vergasungskeller, that we are here talking about, was not a Nazi gas chamber? And why did you not mention the note about the Gaskeller by Fritz Sander &  Karl Schultze? And why did you not mention the Gasprüfer for Zyklon B?

Please, Professor Faurisson needs YOUR help!

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 19, 2011.

Talk of the Town - Jeckelns Grossaktion i Riga 1941

Just som Karl Jäger den 1. december 1941 lagde en sidste hånd på sin rapport om udryddelsen af jøderne i Litauen, havde hans kolleger i Letland travlt med at løse en del af  jødeproblemet i Riga. Ansvaret for løsningen af jødespørgsmålet lå her i hænderne på den Højere SS- og Politifører (HSSPF) Friedrich Jeckeln. Som HSSPF havde han navnlig  til opgave at koordinere arbejdet mellem SS og de forskellige politiformationer, både tyske og lettiske.

Friedrich Jeckeln

Jeckeln havde i midten af måneden fået ordre til at likvidere jøderne i Rigas ghetto. Der var tale om en ordre fra Hitler, gennem Himmler, og Jeckeln og hans stab forberedte denne Grossaktion med vanlig tysk grundighed. At tilintetgøre jøderne, forklarede Jeckeln sine folk , var et spørgsmål om fædrelandspligt. Storaktionen begyndte tidligt om morgenen den 30. november, det var vinterkoldt og stadig mørkt. Ghettoen var blevet opdelt og  afspærret med pigtråd. Jøderne blev drevet sammen i store grupper, og med godt en halv times mellemrum blev de under bevogtning i kolonner på omkring 1000 individer drevet i retning af Dünaburg. Gamle og svage  og jøder med gangbesvær blev transporteret på ladet af  lastbiler. Nogle blev skudt undervejs. Alle endte de i massegrave i Rumbula-skoven. Godt og vel 1000 tyske og lettiske politifolk m.fl. deltog i opgaven, der ikke kun omfattede selve henrettelserne, men også transport, kontrol, og bevogtning osv..

Denne Grossaktion kunne selvsagt ikke undgå at vække stor opmærksomhed i hele Riga. Blot på én dag havde Jeckeln og hans folk - herunder Dr. Stahlecker, chefen for Einsatzgruppe A, som allerede omtalt andetsteds - da mørket faldt på, likvideret 10- 12000 lettiske jøder. Storaktionen i Riga blev ikke blot talk of the town, men tilmed omtalt på britisk og sovjetisk radio samme dags aften.

Men det var ikke kun lettiske jøder, der endte som" sardiner i dåse" - for at bruge Jeckelns egen formulering - det var også omkring 1000 tyske jøder, der endte deres dage som dåsesardiner. Tidligt om morgenen  den 30. ankom således en transport med jøder fra Berlin. Denne transport var oprindeligt bestemt til Kaunas i Litauen, men blev omdirigeret af Reichsbahn. Jeckeln handlede lynhurtigt. Jøderne fra Berlin var dårligt kommanderet  af toget, før de endte i massegrave i Rumbula allerede før den første kolonne med ghettojøder fra Riga nåede frem til skoven. Samme dag, men først over middag, gjorde Himmler kl. 13:30 et meget omtalt notat i sin telefonkalender:" Judentransport aus Berlin" - "Keine Liquidierung." Dette notat afspejlede en telefonsamtale, Himmler havde med Heydrich, der på dette tidspunkt befandt sig i Prag.

Den almindelige ordre til Jeckeln lød på, at alle jøder skulle likvideres. Transporten fra Berlin medbragte et vist antal  priviligerede jøder, der dannede undtagelse fra den almindelige regel. Jeckeln har vel været uvidende om dette særlige forhold, og dette indbragte ham senere en røffel fra hans chef, Himmler.
Likvideringen af alle disse ghettojøder var kun et første skridt i retning af det endelige mål. På grund af de elendige vejrforhold, dyb sne,  måtte aktionen afbrydes, for først at blive genoptaget den 8. december.

På dette tidspunkt gives ordren af Dr. Rudolf Lange, den politichef, der også deltog i den såkaldte Wannsee-konference i Berlin den 20. januar 1942. Dette møde, sammenkaldt af Heydrich, var oprindeligt berammet til at finde sted den 9. december, men blev udsat. Årsagen til udsættelsen er uklar og omtvistet. Det kan meget vel tænkes, at Heydrich har lagt afgørende  vægt på Dr. Langes deltagelse. Her var jo en "ekspert" i den praktiske løsning af jødeproblemet. Men netop i først halvdel af december 1941 var Dr. Lange travlt beskæftiget med praktiske spørgsmål i Letland.

Der er talrige vidner, tyske og lettiske, til den Grossaktion, der fandt sted i Riga den 30. november 1941. Jeckeln, der blev afhørt - og senere henrettet - af russerne, har ikke lagt skjul på hverken disse eller mange andre massehenrettelser, han som HSSPF havde ansvaret for.

En af de politifolk, der var til stede i Rumbula den 30. november, havde åbenbart fået nok, da han i december blev anmodet om igen at tage del i anden etappe af massakren på ghettojøderne i Riga.  I hvert fald siges han at have erklæret: " Ti heste kan ikke trække mig ud til (Rumbula)  igen!" Han blev fritaget for sin "fædrelandspligt".

Som man kunne forvente, har de såkaldte benægtere haft store problemer med at bortforklare  massakren i Riga den 30. november 1941. Deres forudfattede opfattelse er jo den, at den  tyske jødepolitik i anden halvdel af 1941 blot gik ud på at deportere jøderne østpå. Der var kun tale om en "territorial", dvs. geografisk løsning på jødespørgsmålet.

På sin sædvanlige forhastede måde har David Irving fortolket Himmlers telefonnotat på den måde, at vi her har et bevis på, at Hitler holdt hånden over jøderne. Hitler griber altså ind til fordel for jøderne, siger Irving. Hitler var altså en jødekærlig sjæl, mener Irving. Det er noget vrøvl af flere grunde. For det første nedfældede Himmler sit notat før han havde et møde med Hitler, dvs. før Hitler havde mulighed for at ytre sig om sagen. For det andet måtte det forhold, at Hitler forbød én enkelt jødehenrettelse jo betyde, at han i forvejen havde givet grønt lys for henrettelser i almindelighed. Altså kan Hitler ikke have været så jødevenlig, som Irving gik ud fra. Irving bestrider ikke selve massakren den 30. november. Han påberåber sig en vis general Bruns som vidne. Nu er det imidlertid lidt uklart, om Bruns var øjenvidne, eller blot havde hørt om massakren fra anden side.

Denne usikkerhed i forbindelse med ét enkelt usikkert vidne bliver dernæst misbrugt af Faurisson til at kaste tvivl over hele episodens historicitet. Faurisson ignorerer dermed på sin typiske måde alle de andre gode vidner.

Endelig har professor Butz i september 2008 givet sit besyv med. Butz mener, at "Keine Liquidierung" betyder, at toget fra Berlin ikke blev aflyst. Himmler og Heydrich har altså snakket om denne transport fra Berlin, og er blevet enige om at den fandt sted. Formålet med Butz´ komiske  krumspring er altså at undgå enhver tale om at jøderne blev likvideret. Det var kun, siger Butz, selve transporten, der ikke blev likvideret. Den fandt sted, toget fra Berlin blev ikke aflyst! Hvad der så skete med jøderne fra Berlin, da de nåede frem til Riga om morgenen den 30. november, tør Butz ikke udtale sig om. I anden forbindelse hart Butz udtalt, at alle jøderne overlevede krigen. Det må altså også gælder de jøder, der endte i massegravene i Rumbula. For at forklare paradokset, kunne man formode, at Butz tror på kødets genopstandelse. Herom siger Butz dog intet.

Man ser altså, at de tre benægtere betjener sig af den sædvanlige metode: Enten ignorerer de bevislighederne, eller også fordrejer de dem.

Butz, der er amerikaner, tøver ikke med at fordreje det tyske sprog til ukendelighed , tilmed med støtte fra en tysker, Germar Rudolf, der siges at have støttet Butz i at "likvidere" kan betyde at "aflyse". Hvad mon en normal tysk jernbanefunktionær i 1941 ville forstå, hvis han fik at vide, at en jødetransport ikke var eller skulle likvideres? Hvad forstår en dansker eller svensker, hvis man siger til ham, at toget skal likvideres?Hvordan skulle han dog forstå Himmlers notat på den måde, at toget ikke var blevet aflyst, dvs. at toget afgik til tiden, planmæssigt?

Der er hverken hoved eller hale på den slags  vrøvl og spidsfindigheder. Som man kunne vente, "glemmer" de alle at nævne den hovedansvarlige for dette kapitel af Endlösung der Judenfrage - Friedrich Jeckeln. Man kan læse mere, med udførlige kildehenvisninger, hos Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 214-243.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
Den 18. oktober, 2011.

Welcome to Maly Trostinec!

Once the deniers claim that it was not the intention of Hitler to have the Jews exterminated, they are forced to explain what, then, actually happened to the Jews who were deported to the East.

Mr. Mattogno and  Mr. Graf - one of "the heavies of Revisionism", according to Dr. F. Toben - face this puzzle in their 2002 book about Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager?, pp. 316-325. The title of this chapter reads, "Das Endziel der nach Osten deportierten Juden". What, then, was the Endziel of the European Jews in, say, 1942?

The authors admit that, due to lack of documentation, they are unable to say with certainty where or what the final goal of the deportations of European Jews  actually was. Various German sources are quoted to the effect that the Jews are living and working in the East. Camps like Treblinka and Sobibor were, therefore, not at all extermination camps. They were not the final destination; they were merely transit camps. From here, the Jews would "cross the border", and go East - to a new and happy life - or how?

Despite their contempt for "official German historians", the authors end by quoting C. Gerlach, who writes (p. 325) that the Jews were brought by train to Minsk. That the Jews were also brought by train to Minsk is quite true. But the question is: What happened to the Jews once they arrived in Minsk?

Are the authors in good faith when claiming that we have no documentation for what happened once they arrived by train e.g. in Minsk?

The fact is that we have very good German documentation for what actully happened to at least a good deal of the Jews who arrived in Minsk by train, and that we, moreover, have had this documentation at least since 1965, when, in Vienna, Fritz Baaede et al.edited the book "Unsere Ehre heisst Treue". Kriegstagebuch des Kommandostabes des Reichführer-SS, Tätigkeitsberichte der 1. und 2. SS-Inf.-Brigade, der 1. SS-Kav.-Brigade und von Sonderkommando der Waffen-SS.

More recently, these sources were also used by Alfred Gottwaldt & Diana Schulle, Die "Judendeportationen" aus dem Deutschen Reich 1941-1945, Wiesbaden 2005.

One of those Germans who already in 1965 could have helped Mattogno and Graf solve the problem of what happened  to European Jews who arrived in Minsk, was SS-Unterscharführer Arlt.

Arlt, stationed in Minsk, wrote a report dated May 17, 1942. Here we read:

"Am 4. Mai 1942 gingen wir bereits wieder daran, neue Gruben in der Nähe des Gutes vom Kdr. (Kommandeur) selbst auszuheben. Auch diese Arbeiten nahmen 4 Tage in Anspruch. Am 11. Mai traf ein Transport mit Juden (1000 Stück) aus Wien in Minsk ein, und wurden gleich vom Bahnhof zur obengenannten Grube geschafft. Dazu war der Zug direkt an der Grube eingesetzt. Am 13. Mai beaufsichtigten 8 Mann die Ausgrabung einer weiteren Grube, da in nächter Zeit abermals ein Transport mit Juden aus dem Reich hier eintreffen soll."

There are several similar reports from Arlt from this period, and they fit nicely with what we know independently about the number, dates etc. of the trains that left Vienna for Minsk and other destinations in the East.

In the following months, June, July,  August and September, trains arrived in Minsk  not just from Vienna, but also from Königsberg/Berlin, Theresienstadt and Köln.

In September 1942  huge transports of Jews from Theresienstadt  were directed to Treblinka. The numbers of the trains and the number of the Jews on these trains are known. For details, see Gottwaldt & Schulle, op. cit., pp. 237-247.

It is a great pity that Arlt and Maly Trostinec are never mentioned by Faurisson and his imitators. Why do the deniers ignore these important sources?

The picture we get from reading Arlt´s contemporary reports leaves us in no doubt about the "Endziel" of thousands of European  Jews who were deported to Minsk and Maly Trostinec: Here the SS and the  mass graves were waiting for them.

It was certainly not wrong when Himmler, in a  speech given in the Haus der Flieger in Berlin, June 9, 1942 said:

"Die Völkerwanderung der Juden werden wir in einem Jahr bestimmt fertig haben; dann wandert keiner mehr" (Geheimreden, 1974, p. 159).

But it was not the full truth; Himmler was vague - understandably so. What happened to the Jews was a "Geheime Reichssache".

In Posen, on October 4, 1943, Himmler was more explicit (ibid., p. 169):

"Es musste der schwere Entschluss gefasst werden, dieses Volk von der Erde verschwinden zu lassen."

Unterscharführer Arlt and his men would have know precisely what Himmler was aiming at. How can deniers still  pretend to be ignorant of these obvious  facts?

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 3, 2011

The Ladies of Libau

The executions of the Jews of Libau (Lijepaja) in Latvia started already in July 1941, and one of the good things about these otherwise  awful  events is that they are so well documented by reliable German primary souces of various kinds. See, for instance, Ernst Klee, Willi Dressen, Volker Riess, "Schöne Zeiten". Judenmord aus der Sicht der Täter und Gaffer, Frankfurt am Main 1988, pp. 122-129 (with sources, p. 253).

Unfortunately, the name of the person who took the eight photographs reproduced on pp. 123, 125, 127 and 128 has not been identified. There can hardly be any doubt that they  record executions that took place in December 1941 not far from Libau itself. On page 123 we see two photographs with the (modern)  text: "Libau, am 15.Dezember 1941: Jüdische Frauen müssen sich in der Kälte und vor dem Augen ihrer Mörder ausziehen."

Now, Udo Walendy, in the book edited by Ernst Gauss in 2000, Dissecting the Holocaust, p. 258, provides us with two slightly different reproductions of the second of these photographs. One is a bit darker than the other. Both are somewhat blurred. Walendy speaks of "total fabrications". He writes:

"The same goes for Group 17, purported to show naked inmates prior to mass executions in Latvia. It speaks for itself that several versions of these pictures exist (ref. given by U.W. in note 44; CL). The left one especially cannot be called a photo. At the best, it is a painting based on a photo. Compare the two women in the background who appear to have been drawn in."

It is not easy for us  to subscribe to Walendy´s opinion about "Group 17", the ladies of Libau:

First, one would like to know, why Walendy does not say anything about the other photographs - especially the first one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". Is this also supposed to be "a painting based on a photo"? In that case, one may ask: What did the original photo look like, and why was it used for a  painting?

Moreover: Is it really fair to speak of  "several versions"? Are we not rather dealing with different reproductions, some being less blurred that others? The clearest one being the one reproduced on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten". It is certainly not a new "version", just another reproduction of the same original(s).
Walendy also invites us to look at the two women in the background "who appear to have been drawn in".

To my eye they do NOT appear to have been drawn in. But even if one were to assume, argumenti causa, that these two naked women had been drawn in, why, then, one may ask, were they drawn in? There must have been a reason for someone having decided to do so. There were already several naked women on the photo - so whay add more? But, as said, this is just for the sake of argument. Looking at reproduction of Walendy´s two women as to be seen on p. 123 of "Schöne Zeiten",  there is nothing to suggest that they were "drawn in".

Now, even if Walendy were to argue that one of the eight photographs belonged to a group that he called "total fabrications", what about all the other - seven - photographs belonging to this series? Are they also "paintings" based on a photo? Where is that photo now? What did that photo look like? Why did the unknown painter decide to make a paiting based on a photo? What kind of changes did the unknown painter introduce?

To sum up: The picture with the two naked women in the background is a photo, not a painting based on an unknown  photo. The same goes for the other pictures from Libau. They are not the paintings of any unknown painter.

Again: Udo Walendy fails to ask these questions. When faced with a photo that he does not like, he merely states that it is not a photo.

Details about the executions of the Jews from Libau and many other locations in Latvia may be found in Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp.  286-304 ("Einsatzkommando 2/KdS Lettland").

The photographs from the executions  near Libau are rare, bot not unique. Some very fine photographs of Jews  on their way to execution, then  next to the mass grave, and, finally,  in the mass grave are to be found in the  recent standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Der Judenmord in Polen und die deutsche Ordnungspolizei 1939-1945, Paderborn 2011, next to page 532. These executions of Jews by German police (belonging to units that  can be identified precisely)  already took place on November 11, 1939 in Ostrow Mazowiecki, in Poland.

It being  absolutely  impossible to argue that these original German  photographs from November 1939 are "total fabrications", there is really nothing strange in the fact that similar photographs were taken two years later, this time in Latvia.

Photographs taken in themselves do not tell us the full story. But taken together with other supplementary pieces of evidence, they may  form a precious source for a vivid  understanding of what actually happened in the past.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011

Dr. Stahlecker - Where Did He Go?

Dr. Walter Stahlecker was the first commander of Einsatzgruppe A, from June 1941 until his death in March 1942.

Dr. Walter Stahlecker

According to the most recent and very careful calculations of Wolfgang Curilla, EG A was responsible for the execution of almost 250.000 Jewish men, women and children - quite in accordance with  the order issued by Hitler. (Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, p. 215)

In its Closing Statement for the US, Case 9, The USA against Ohlendorf, et al.., February 13, 1948, the prosecution concluded that the evidence was compelling, that " a German (military) victory would have enormously widened the scope of operations of the Einsatzgruppen and the holocaust  (!) would have been even more staggering...the crimes of the Einsatzgruppen were not, fundamentally, military crimes at all. They were not committed in order to make military victory possible.On the contrary, military victory was sought in order to put the victors in a position where these crimes could be committed. These crimes were a war objective, not a military means" (quoted from Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge  2009, p. 215)

This Statement is noteworthy for the fact that we here - to the best of my knowledge - have one of the earliest postwar applications  of the word "holocaust" by the Americans to refer to what the Germans themselves normally called die Endlösung (der Judenfrage).

The US prosecution here seems to use the word "holocaust" in the sense of the executions of Jews by members of the Einsatzgruppen. In so doing, the prosecution not only refers to the operations of Dr. Stahlecker´s EG A, but also to those of the three other Einsatzgrppen, including, of course,  the various Einsatzkommandos, Sonderkommandos etc.

To deny the historicity of " the holocaust"  in this sense would obviously be about as difficult as to deny the reality of the sun and the moon.

Nevertheless, Professor Faurisson recently repeated his conviction that it was NOT the task of the EG, i.e. of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues to kill the Jews.

Professor Faurisson is, of course, entitled to maintain this startling  view, but in so doing he is also obliged to explain how in the world all these enormous misunderstandings about the operations of Dr. Stahlecker and his colleagues  can be accounted for? We, therefore, look in the writings of Faurisson, Graf, Rudolf and so on, to see what they have to says about Dr. Stahlecker. And what do we find about Dr. Stahlecker? Answer: Not a word!

This,then, permits us to conclude that it is a vital part of the "methodology" of Professor Faurisson and his imitators  to ignore good German evidence. One cannot claim that we have no evidence about the operations of EG A and the other Einsatzgruppen. Nor can one claim that these operations have nothing to do with the"holocaust" (as used by the Americans in  February 1948).

The various reports of Dr. Stahlecker were known to the public at a very early date. Parts are reproduced e.g. in the book by Léon Poliakov & Joseph Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden. Dokumente und Berichte, the first (German) edition of which appeared in Berlin 1955.

Professor Faurisson knows the book and its authors/editors  - but obviously  prefers to forget all about Dr. Stahlecker, one of the main characters in that book. Professor Faurisson is, of course, also entitled, alternatively, to hold his startling  view without giving any reason at all for his belief. His belief is, in that case, based on a sort of mystical revelation. A geat mystic, a poor scholar!

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 2, 2011

Faurisson film fooling the French

A French historian by the name of Paul-Érik Blanrue has just produced a video about the "man" Faurisson; it is in French and available here. Blanrue has an old  interest in counterfactual history - so Faurisson is just the right man for him  to focus on.

Faurisson presents all his well-known inveterate opinions about gas chambers etc., but, unfortunately, Blanrue fails to ask some of the critical questions one expects from a good historian. From an announcement  just received, it is clear that Faurisson is not only pleased with himself but also with Blanrue and this video.

Here, therefore, are some of the questions the French public should ask in order not to be fooled by Faurisson´s Chutzpah.

The main point is, as always,  the Nazi gas chambers.

1. Robert Faurisson (RF) shows us the famous drawing of Krema II in Birkenau, priding himself of being the first to discovery this blueprint  in 1976. Here, one can see Leichenkeller I and Leichenkeller 2. RF fails to inform us that Leichenkeller 1 in early 1943 was referred to by the Germans responsible for its construction as Vergasungskeller or Gaskeller - two different terms for a gas chamber. So, these Germans were not merely speaking of normal morgues, but also of gas chambers! None of these men or their colleagues later denied that these gas chambers were for killing Jews. It is only RF , who was not there, who denies this. So, a man who was not there knows better than the men who were there! RF also forgets to mention that there were many gas chambers and gas vans used to exterminate Jews inside and outside the Reich. RF thus ignores vital evidence that invalidates his unscientific  views about Nazi gas chambers.

2. RF refers to a French historian, Conan,  who some years ago pointed out that with regard to Krematorium 1 in Auschwitz, "all is false". RF should have told the public that the fact that "all is false" NOW, by no means allows us to infer that there was no gassings in that building THEN. RF seems to have learned some of his tricks from the Allies - who were full of them!

3. Likewise, RF compares the Nazi gas chambers of Birkenau to American gas chambers. He should, of course have compared German gas chambers to GERMAN gas chambers - NOT  American gas chambers. Making false comparisons is a cheap trick.

4. RF also fools his French viewers when he claims a victory over Hilberg and Vrba. It is true that Hilberg, in the first edition of his standard work on the extermination of the European Jews, , had a note about Hitler orders to kill the Jews, and that Hilberg deleted that note after the first Zündel trial in Toronto. But it is WRONG thereby to suggest that Hilberg admitted that Hitler had given no such order. RF should have mentioned that Hilberg never abandoned his view that there must have been a Hitler order to that effect. That we have no such order in Hitler´s own hand, is only what was to be expected. When it comes to Vrba, it is true that his testimony proved unreliable.

But it is WRONG to claim that Vrba was the main witness for gas chambers in Auschwitz. Again and again, RF jumps to conclusions. Many unreliable witnesses to a given event, does NOT mean that that event did not take place. It merely shows confusionn or dishonesty, or the like. Had he been an honest seeker after  historical  truth, RF would have called the attention of his French viewers to the most recent and exhaustive discussion about Hitler´s order to kill the Jews. It is to be found in the standard work of Wolfgang Curilla, Die deutsche Ordnungspolizei und der Holocaust im Baltikum und in Weissrussland 1941-1944, Paderborn 2006, pp. 86-123. Having reviewed all the numerous available German sources, Curilla concludes that there was, for sure, a Hitler order to kill ALL Jews, including women and children, and that that order, almost certainly, was given before June 22, 1941.

Only a pilpulist  keeps on demanding that one shows him a piece of paper signed by the Führer: Kill all the Jews!

5. RF also refers to Höss.It is quite true that Höss was beaten up  and that his testimony  sometimes is unreliable. But this fact does NOT permit us to conclude that ALL that Höss said or wrote has to be discarded. When Höss says or writes things that can be independently confirmed from other sources, there is no reason to discard his testimony. It is, surely,  the same with RF: The fact that RF says or writes many things that are unreliable, does NOT mean that ALL that he says or writes is totally unreliable. We do not want to be unfair to Höss, and we do not want to be unfair to Faurisson.

6. Finally, the 6 million figure. This figure was often mentioned by Zionists even long before the Second World War. Who could, in those days, have any accurate notion of the precise number! There were even those who claimed, in May 1945, that 6 million Jews had survived and were safe! Eichmann called the 6 million figure "Unsinn" or "Wahnsinn". The important thing is that Hitler intended to have his police exterminate all Jews, and that Himmler also admitted that his men had done what they could to implement the order of Hitler.

The fact that PRECISELY 6 million Jews were not murdered by the Nazis , does NOT allow us to infer that "they were all there" in 1945. These are but some of the facts the public in France have to keep in mind not to be completely fooled by Professor Faurisson´s "counterfactual history"..

Dr. Christian Lindtner
October 1, 2011

The Doctor who Wanted to Gas God and the World

Anyone who wants to discuss seriously, what took place in Treblinka, cannot afford to ignore the name of Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl, for Eberl was the first Kommandant of Treblinka (from July  1942). So what do the great experts of Holocaust denial  have to say about Dr. med. Eberl?

Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl

Well, if we consult the index of names to the four volumes of Ecrits revisionnistes of Robert Faurisson, we find - nothing! Well, if we then consult the index of names in the "standard work" edited by Ernst Gauss, Dissecting the Holocaust, we find - nothing!

If we, finally, consult what is supposed to be the book about this camp, namely Carlo Mattogno & Jürgen Graf, Treblinka. Vernichtungslager oder Durchgangslager? from 2002, we find  the name of Eberl mentioned twice.

The first mention is on p. 15, a quotation from another book. On p. 143, two letters from Eberl, from June 1942,  are mentioned. They contain nothing criminal at all. Now,why in the world do none of these experts tell their reader something about the background of the first Kommandant of Treblinka? To understand this omission, one must recall that their intention is to show that Treblinka was not a Vernichtungslager, but only a Durchgangslager, i.e. a place where the Jews were certainly not gassed. So we must search for other sources.

An illuminating source is found in the important work of Ernst Klee, Dokumente zur "Euthanasie", Frankfurt am Main 1985. This collection of German documents cannot be ignored by any scholars interested in what actually happened. Here, on p. 20-21, we read about Dr. Irmfried Eberl:

"Leiter der Vergasungsanstalten Brandenburg und Bernburg ("Dr. Schneider"), danach Kommandant in Treblinka, anschliessend wieder in Bernburg. Von seinem stellvertretenden Büroleiter Godensweig als "sadistisch und blutrünstig" bezeichnet. Nach T 4-Arzt Bunke wollte er "Gott und Welt vergasen".

The appointment of Dr. med. Irmfried Eber as the first Kommandant of the Vernichtungslager Treblinka was thus a perfectly logical choice. Here was the man who wanted to gas God and the Worl - probably including the Jews.

Had Treblinka been a mere Durchgangslager - a transit camp to places not found on the map -  a real expect in gassing human beings would hardly have been the right choice. Many of the colleagues of Dr. med. Irmfried Eberl  had a similar backgroud - they were great gassers!

The evidence for gas chambers and gas vans used during the Euthanasia programme is, as knwn, very well documented, and there is no evidence at all that Hitler, when it came to the physical extermination of the Jews, changed his brutal mind.

All this is, typically, ignored by those who still speak of "eine territoriale Lösung" to the Jewish question. The "territories" that "Dr. Schneider" had in mind were, of course the gas chambers and the mass graves. Dr. Eberl hanged himself on February 16,  1948.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 29, 2011

Fantastic revelation from Professor Faurisson!‏

On his Blog, dated September 11, 2011, Prof.  Robert Faurisson publishes many fantastic tales under the heading "Die Siege des Revisionismus".

One of these tales is about the notorious Einsatzgruppen:

The French professor now, always proud of his own "exactitude", reveals to the world - without giving any source:

"Niemals erhielten die Einsatzgruppen den Befehl, Juden als solche zu erschiessen."

In English: "The Einsatzgruppen never received the order to shoot the Jews as such."

Really? Fantastic news!

In 1947, twenty-four leaders of the four Einsatzgruppen were indicted  for having murdered approximately one million civilians in open air shootings, most of the victims being Jews, including women and children. None of these men denied this fact, nor did their boss, Heinrich Himmler.

Himmler, in fact, stated, in June 1944:

"It is good that we had the brutality to exterminate the Jews within our domain ".

It was the very same Himmler, who in July 1941 ordered his men: "All Jews must be shot!"

One of the leaders of the Einsatzgruppen, Adolf Ott, expressed himself rather clearly, when he admitted that, "every Jew who was apprehended had to be shot. Never mind whether he was a perpetrator or not." (Source: Hilary Earl, The Nuremberg SS-Einsatzgruppen Trial 1945-1958, Cambridge 2009, p. 214).

Many of these leaders were educated and intelligent Germans. Nevertheless, not only they but even Himmler must have misunderstood the orders received from Hitler.

Now, many years later, we suddenly have a French professor telling us - and, posthumously, them - that they never received such orders. These men - and thousands of other members of the SS and German police units under Himmler  - must, if we are to believe this new witness, have followed orders they never received.

What a great pity that Professor Faurisson was not there in 1941 to tell them that these orders were mere illusions! So many Jewish lives would have been spared, had our French witness - then but a child -  only been there to tell Himmler and all the others of their delusions!

The source of Professor Faurisson´s new revelation remains a great mystery!

Dr. Christian Lindtner
September 28, 2011

Ny bog om SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger

Hvis man skal tro verdens førende benægter, Robert Faurisson, så fik de fire Einsatzgrupper IKKE til opgave at skyde jøderne, da krigen mod Sovjetunionen brød ud den 22. juni 1941. Medlemmerne af de fire Einsatzgruppen (EG) skulle blot efterprøve jødernes identitet og  foretage arrestationer, hvis jødernes papirer  ikke var i orden osv. - altså ganske  normale og trivielle  politiopgaver. Sådan forklarede den franske professor i et interview, han gav i Teheran i december 2006.

Det fremgår imidlertid af EGs egne rapporter fra krigens tid, og af ledernes og deltagernes egne forklaringer afgivet efter krigen, at en af  opgaverne netop gik ud på at skyde alle jøder, eller næsten alle, idet nogle skulle udnyttes  som arbejdsjøder - indtil videre. På denne måde opstod et vist modsætningsforhold mellem Heydrichs EG på den ene side, og de militære eller civile tyske myndigheder på den enden side, dvs. de myndigheder, der havde hårdt brug for jødisk arbejdskraft.

I virkeligheden var der ikke tale om noget absolut modsætningsforhold. Når arbejdsjøderne ikke længere kunne arbejde, blev de normalt "selekteret" , ført bort og  skudt.

Det skønnes, at de fire EG bærer ansvaret for udryddelsen af omkring én million jøder. Noget helt præcist tal kan naturligvis ikke anføres, og enkelte unøjagtigheder i rapporterne, der blev udfærdiget i Berlin, kan selvfølgelig heller ikke udelukkes.

Den omstændighed, at der er unøjagtigheder i nogle rapporter, har fået nogle benægtere til at drage den konklusion, at alle rapporterne er falske.

Dette svarer til, at man modtager et brev eller en avis med trykfejl  eller forkerte oplysninger, og deraf konkluderer, at brevet eller avisen som helhed er et åbenlyst falskneri.

Den amerikanske benægter, A. Butz, har tilmed påstået, at EGs indberetninger fra Sovjetunionen blev fabrikeret af kommunisterne  i Moskva!

Hvis det var sandt, så måtte det logisk set betyde, at Heydrich blev holdt godt for nar, for sagen er den, at rapporterne blev kopieret i Berlin og dernæst sendt ud til de tyske myndigheder, ministerier osv., der havde en officiel  interesse i at holde sig orienteret om forholdene i de besatte områder.

Alternativt, må Heydrich have været med på spøgen: Hvis Butz har ret, forudsætter det altså eksistensen af en hemmelig sammensværgelse mellem kommunisterne og den ellers som skånselsløs kommunistmodstander kendte Heydrich. Rapporterne - omkring 2900 sider - er udfærdiget på Heydrichs brevpapir, som Heydrich ergo må have forsynet kommunisterne med i forvejen!

Følger man den bizarre Butz, skal Heydrich altså først have forsynet Moskva med stakke af sit eget brevpapir. På dette brevpapir har russerne så fabrikeret stakkevis af falske rapporter fra Heydrichs egne SS-officerer. Disse falske rapporter er så blevet sendt tilbage til Heydrichs kontor i Berlin. Her har kontordamerne - hvis navne vi kender - så kopieret rapporterne fra Moskva og endelig sendt dem ud til diverse tyske ministerier og myndigheder, altså med posten fra Berlin, ikke med posten fra  Moskva. Da rapporterne jo dokumenterer nazistiske  forbrydelser, hvilket andet formål kan Heydrich så have haft, end at bekæmpe nazismen! Facit: Topnazisten Heydrich var - hvis man følger Butz-logik - en af nazismens førende fjender!

I tråd hermed mener Butz, at jøderne slet ikke blev myrdet, men tvætimod overlevede, bl.a. derved, at de flygtede til Amerika.  Da krigen var slut, var alle jøderne der stadig, skrev Butz.

Karl Jäger

En af de vigtigste rapporter til belysning af EGs virksomhed foreligger i form af en indberetning fra SS-Standartenführer Karl Jäger fra Kaunas i Litauen. Den er dateret 1. december 1941. Rapporten, der er på ni sider, blev fundet af russerne i Kaunas i 1945 og overdraget til de tyske myndigheder i 1963. Rapporten, hvis ægthed blev omhyggeligt efterprøvet af tyske kriminalister i 1963, bærer Karl Jägers egenhændige underskrift (s. 9).

Butz, Rudolf, Graf og andre benægtere forbigår Jägers rapport i tavshed - talende tavshed. Kun Faurisson nævner rapporten én enkelt gang, i 1990 (Ecrits revisionnistes, p. 1028), og affærdiger den som helhed - med vanlig chutzpah - med den usande påstand, at den aldrig er blevet undersøgt af eksperter og at dens kilder er ukendte.

Karl Jäger er med andre ord persona non grata i benægternes fiktive verden. Men tilbage til den historiske virkelighed:

I modsætning til flere af sine kolleger var Jäger ikke akademiker, men han var alligevel en omhyggelig og pligtopfyldende mand, tilmed meget musikalsk.

Det står nu fast, at Karl Jäger  havde ansvaret for planlægningen af mordet på 137.346 jøder i Litauen. Det tog ham kun fem måneder! Jäger, der trådte ind i SD i Berlin i 1938, var fra sommeren 1941  indtil efteråret 1943 chef for Einsatzkommando 3, under Einsatzgruppe A ( Dr. Walther Stahlecker, med hovedsæde i Riga).

Under sig havde Jäger bl.a. den den yderst effektive og grundige jødehader Joachim Hamann (1913-1945), chef for "Rollkommando Hamann" - med ansvaret for skydningen af  omkring 60,000 litauiske jøder.
Einsatzkommandoerne stod, som nævnt, under Reinhard Heydrich, den øverste chef for SD og Sicherheitspolizei (Sipo).

I Kaunas sammenfattede Jäger den 1. december 1941  i en rapport til Berlin resultatet af hans folks indsats i Litauen -  fra første færd med hjælp fra litauiske partisaner: ialt 137.346 - næsten alle jøder. Jäger anfører omhyggeligt, hvor mange jøder - mænd, kvinder, børn - hans folk og de litauiske kollaboratører  har skudt, dag for dag, landsby for landsby, let for os  at følge på kalender og kort.  Han skriver:

"Jeg kan idag fastslå, at EK 3 har opnået målet, at løse Litauens jødeproblem: I Litauen findes ikke længere jøder - bortset fra arbejdsjøderne inkl. deres familier."

Den 9. februar 1942 fulgte endnu en rapport; det samlede antal var nu oppe på 138.272 - næsten alle jøder. Jäger fortsatte pligtskyldigt sit blodige håndværk, og den 24 juli s.å. blev Hitler personligt underrettet om, "at idag er også Litauen jødefri".

Helt jødefrit har Litauen nu alligevel ikke været i juli 1942, for i sommeren 1944  blev der deporteret omkring 10000 jøder fra Litauen til koncentrationslejren Stutthof (ved Danzig). Det må have været resterne af de arbejdsjøder, Jäger modvilligt havde skånet i 1941.

Jägers indberetning til Berlin - kun det ene af fem eksemplarer er bevaret  - er autentisk og dermed en udmærket førstehåndskilde til vor viden om Einsatzgruppernes virksomhed. Opgaven var at udrydde alle jøder, hurtigt og effektivt, med meget ihærdig  bistand fra lokale frivillige. Kun arbejdsjøder blev skånet.
Jäger, der var født i 188, hængte sig selv i fængslet 1959. Han benægtede ikke de faktiske jødeudryddelser i Litauen, men fralagde sig ethvert personligt ansvar.

Hovedværket om Karl Jäger er nu: Wolfram Wette, Karl Jäger. Mörder der litauischen Juden, Frankfurt am Main 2011 (april)  Pris EURO 9,99.

Dr. Christian Lindtner
April og september 2011

Chutzpah of Mr. Graf.

In response to two letters of mine, addressed to Dr Fredrick Toben in Australia, Mr. Jürgen Graf (JG) published, on 22 July 2011, a "letter of contempt" entitled "The moral and intellectual bankruptcy of a scholar: Dr. Christian Lindtner and Holocaust Revisionism". JG takes up ten points that I have for the most part already dealt with here.

Reading his open letter, I understand that my "moral and intellectual bankruptcy" has to do with the fact that most of  my research depends on the scientific work produced by German scholars such as Wolfgang Curilla, Krausnick & Wilhelm (1981), and many others (see my Bibliography for details).

It is quite true that I "stand on the shoulders of German scholarship" - in this field as in other fields of research. All Danish scholars of "the old school" would agree that when it comes to the study of ancient religions, languages, philology, theology, history etc., Danish scholars do, indeed, stand on the shoulders of their German colleagues. This does not mean that Danish scholars consider themselves unable to come up with their own independent contributions to scientific progress; many Danish scholars (Rask, N.L. Westergaard, Madvig, J.L.Heiberg, Vilh. Thomsen, Frederik Poulsen et al.) have done so, and thus won the respect of their German colleagues. For that reason, they may also feel obliged to defend German colleagues when these are unfairly attacked and, perhaps, not in a position freely to defend themselves - for various historical reasons.

JG admits that he has not read some of these books. Nevertheless, JG does not hesitate to condemn them as the "works of dogmatic and bigoted court historians", who violate "every principle of scientific historiography", etc.

This is totally unfair. Curilla and others base their research on contemporary German police reports, contemporary diaries etc., and on an enormous amount of German witnesses, who were present and who took part in the crimes etc. They deal with these documents in a critical fashion, as one should. In the opinion of JG, however, all this "evidence for the Holocaust was fabricated by West German justice."

All the reports are "suspect from the beginning" etc., according to JG. JG bases his denial on the fact that there are - true - a few cases of false documents and witnesses. He then jumps to the general conclusion that all, or nearly all documents and witnesses are false. Jumping like a ball to general conclusions is not what we expect from a serious scholar.

Faced with German documents that seem to be authentic, JG typically avoids the issue. For instance, when Himmler said to the generals in Sonthofen  in June 1944: "Es ist gut, dass wir die Härte hatten, die Juden in unserem Bereich auszurotten", one expects a fair comment from JG.

Instead, JG reminds us of the fact that not all Jews had been exterminated. Many survived, even the war. This is quite true. But Himmler was speaking of those that had already been exterminated! Did Himmler not know what he was talking about? And what about many other statements from Himmler to the very same effect: The Jews had to be exterminated, and they were exterminated.

Coming to the problem of the Vergasungskeller, or Gaskeller, JG suggest, with Mattogno, that this cellar was to be used for delousing, but the Germans later dropped that project. Here, a normal historian would ask, WHY and WHEN the Germans dropped that project? But most of all, one wants to know what kind of delousing the Germans had in mind before they dropped this project. Did they intend to delouse clothing? Or did they intend to delouse cadavers (dead Jews, as suggested by David Irving)? In any case, the answer is absurd.

By bringing up Babi Yar and Katyn, JG reveals his lack of historical sense. Paul Blobel was the first (in Nuremberg) to question the figure of 33.711 victims, finding it too high; but Blobel never denied the event as such. Present were also, as has recently become known, members of the Polizeibataillon 303, from Bremen. And the mass murder at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941 must be seen in the historical context of numerous similar events in the second half of 1941: the murder of the Jews of Lubny in October, the children of Bjelaja-Zerkow in August, the naked women of Libau in December etc. etc. The work of an Italian scholar enables us to follow in the bloody tracks of the German police, day by day, from one place to another, with the purpose of making the land "free from Jews". The proof is largely provided by their own reports (http://www.ordnungspolizei.org/), occasionally confirmed by the independent evidence of local witnesses, in rare cases even photographs.

Katyn is important, not only because it shows, as is well-known by now, that the Soviets were ready to prepare false "scientific reports" of the actual events, but also - and that is to be kept in mind - because the efforts of the Germans demonstrate how sensitive they were to the incriminating evidence provided by mass graves. For that very reason, they gave highest priority to the removal of the traces of their own mass graves. Again, the responsibility for their removal was assigned to Paul Blobel: "Sein Auftrag erhielt absoluten Vorrang vor anderen Aufgaben" (Curilla, 2006, p. 746).

JG also contends  that "Kommando 1005" could not have removed the physical remains of all those bodies, and that "court historians" have failed to account for this. But Curilla (2006, pp. 745-769) has provided careful documentation of the activities, the problems etc. that "Sonderkommando 1005" faced. JG starts counting Jewish teeth, but would it not have been better taste to quote Curilla:

"Die nicht völlig verbrannten Knochenreste wurden mit Stampfern zerkleinert und zusammen mit der Asche im Gelände verstreut." (op. cit., p. 753).

For the same reason it is difficult to satisfy the absurd demands of those who insist on seeing all the dead Jews on the table before they will believe that Hitler and Himmler et al. were speaking the truth.

With some of their own crimes in mind, Generalkommissar Kube, in an 18 June 1943 letter from Riga to Berlin is quoted for asking: "Was ist dagegen Katyn?" Since this letter has been easily available to scholars at least since 1955 (Léon Poliakov & Joseph Wulf, Das Dritte Reich und die Juden. Berlin 1955, p. 192), one wonders why JG ignores it now that he himself has chosen to take up this issue. And Wilhelm Kube, a brutal old National socialist, is also an excellent contemporary witness to numerous other cases of mass murder in Belorussia. These documents cannot possibly have been fabricated by German justice after the war, as JG may wish to insinuate.

JG mentions Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski, but his case is by no means as simple as here presented by JG; see the references in Krausnick & Wilhelm, 1981, p. 671; and ibid., p. 639: "1962 in einem von mehreren gegen ihn angestrengten Verfahren zu lebenslänglichem Zuchthaus verurteilt."- In Nuremberg, on 7 January 1946, v.d. Bach-Zelewski was asked about the murder of 90000 men, as Ohlendorf, commander of Einsatzgruppe D, had freely admitted a few days earlier. He replied:

"Wenn man jahrelang predigt, jahrzehntelang predigt, dass die slawische Rasse eine Unterrasse ist, dass die Juden überhaupt keine Menschen sind, dann muss es zu einer solchen Explosion kommen."

This argument makes good sense, and it reflects the views of Hitler and Himmler. It reflects what actually happened. For Hitler, even the most severe punishment of the Jews was too mild. Goebbels in his diary, 27 April 1942:

"Die Juden haben unserem Erdteil soviel Leid zugefügt, dass die härteste Strafe, die man über sie verhängen kann, immer noch zu milde ist..."

On 27 March 1942, Goebbels had noted what happened to the Jews in the East:

"Es wird hier hier ein ziemlich barbarisches und nicht näher zu beschreibendes Verfahren angewandt, und von den Juden selbst bleibt nicht mehr viel übrig. Im grossen kann man wohl feststellen, dass 60% davon liquidiert werden müssen, während nur noch 40% in die Arbeit eingesetzt werden können."... "Gott sei Dank haben wir jetzt während des Krieges eine ganze Reihe von Möglichkeiten, die uns im Frieden verwehrt wären. Die müssen wir ausnützen."

Shooting was merely one of the several possible ways of getting rid of the Jews. Goebbels, 16 March 1942:

"Es erweist sich deshalb als notwendig in vermehrten Umfange wieder Juden zu erschiessen."

Hans Frank and many, many others also refer to the shooting of Jews in this period (see e.g. Dieter Schenk, Der Lemberger Professorenmord und der Holocaust in Ostgalizien, passim).

In spite of all this, JG claims that there is no German documentation for the murder of Jewish women and children. But, in truth, there are hundreds of documents. Within easy reach is the report of Karl Jäger, 1 December 1941. See the recent book by Wolfram Wette: Karl Jäger. Mörder der litauischen Juden, Frankfurt a. M. 2011. The systematic murder of Jewish men, women and children in Lithuania started already in July 1941. By 1 December the toll of victims had reached 137.346. Jäger, commander of Einsatzkommando 3 (EG A) wrote:

"Ich kann heute feststellen, dass das Ziel, das Judenproblem für Litauen zu lösen, von EK. 3 erreicht worden ist. In Litauen gibt es keine Juden mehr, ausser den Arbeitsjuden incl. ihrer Familien,...". (Wette, op. cit. p. 243).

Jäger committed suicide in his cell in 1959. He did not deny the crimes in Lithuania, only his own personal responsibility. He put the blame on one of his subordinates, Joachim Hamann, whose name has now become insolubly associated with the notoriously efficient "Rollkommando Hamann". Hamann, an ardent antisemite, took his own life in July 1945. In 1990, to be sure, Professor Robert Faurisson, made a feeble attempt to question Jäger´s report (Ecrits revisionnistes, III, p. 1028): According to Faurisson, it reported the execution of "plusieurs centaines de milliers de juifs " - which is not the case - and "les sources dont il s´inspire sont inconnues" - which is also not the case (see Wette, op. cit., passim). Faurisson moreover refers to the standard work on the Einsatzgruppen of Krausnick and Wilhelm from 1981. He tells us that it contains 688 pages, which is true (and irrelevant here), but that "les auteurs ne produisent un ordre ou un plan d´extermination des juifs soviétiques" - which is a gross distortion (op. cit., p. 1028). Typically, on the basis of a few insignificant errors, the value of the work of these two eminent German scholars as a whole is flatly rejected (op. cit.,p. 1029).

The easiest way to "understand" Faurisson´s "method", however, is to revise the list of names given in the fourth volume of his Ecrits revisionnistes, pp. 1955- 1991. If one takes the trouble to compare this index with the long lists of names given in the works of Krausnick & Wilhelm, Curilla and many other German scholars, one will see that Faurisson simply ignores scores of important German witnesses to the Endlösung. Instead, he wastes a lot of paper on entirely insignificant or false witnesses,often repeating himself by giving names that no normal historian or court would take very serious. And what about Himmler´s order from July 1941:

"Sämtliche Juden müssen erschossen werden. Judenweiber in die Sümpfe treiben." (Christopher Browning, Die Entfesslung der "Endlösung". Berlin 2006, p. 410).

JG just ignores these contemporary sources. Or Hitler´s own words, 30 January 1942, about the Vernichtung des Judentums:

"Zum erstenmal wird diesmal das echt altjüdische Gesetz anwendet: "Aug´ um Aug´, Zahn um Zahn!""

Again, JG ignores contemporary evidence.

And as for the gas vans, that the Danish Sanskritist had the "audacity" to mention: Good German evidence of gassing Jews and others in vans and in chambers, in camps and elsewhere, right from 1939, is found in the recent book edited by Günter Morsch & Bertrand Perz, Neue Studien zu Nationalsozialistischen Massentötungen durch Giftgas. Berlin 2011. Here, the various false claims to be found in the reports of Leuchter and Rudolf are also debunked. Any serious debate about gassings should, of course, not start with Auschwitz, but with the beginning: the euthanasia program, then Chelmno/Kulmhof etc. - Why in the world would there be gassings of Jews and others in so many other places - but not in Auschwitz-Birkenau?

To sum up: Jürgen Graf´s "letter of contempt" confirms what I have already concluded above about the method of deniers: The trick is simply to ignore or distort the evidence available. You slander scholars who stick to the available evidence and to the historical context. Compared to a giant like Hilberg, who, like all scholars, made errors, JG turns out to be a dwarf. So it seems fair to conclude, as I did, that "Denial is Chutzpah".

What about Mr Graf himself? Graf has a rare command of many languages, to my ear he even speaks Danish admirably well. He is a prolific writer and translator. He fights for his beliefs. As such, he probably deserves credit for having removed many popular misconceptions about the Holocaust. It is a sad truth that competent scholars, fearing public exposure, perhaps, often fail to take steps to correct popular misconceptions that flourish in the media. . With all his abilities, it is a great pity that Graf has little or no training as a scholar. For serious scholarship he only has contempt, as a dilettant often has.

Most of all, however, JG reminds us of a Christian fundamentalist. No rational argument will persuade such Biblical fundamentalists to admit that the earth is not in the center of the universe, or that Jesus is not sitting up there on a cloud just waiting for the right moment to fly down followed by his apostles to take revenge. It is, perhaps, for that reason, that JG concludes his letter of contempt by confessing to the world that he does not endorse my humble views about the Buddhist and Hellenistic origins of early Christianity.

Gott sei Dank!

Dr. Christian Lindtner
24 July 2011